Artchemy requires an Editorial Policy. No policy is perfect, each has its own benefits and drawbacks. The goal of this text is to understand this issue, debate it, share our findings with the community, and decide our Editorial Policy together. Please share your thoughts at @Artchemy, so we may polish it with your feedback.
Our starting point is freedom of speech. If we study history, it is clear that no single person is beyond mistakes, confusion, and errors. Even the best people make mistakes, nobody is beyond this. This means that no single person or entity can reliably be the sole arbiter of truth. Everyone needs a voice, so we can all figure out what the truth is. If everyone individually makes up their own mind, this massively divides risk and makes it smaller. Mistakes would be contained to fewer people. Diversity of speech and thought means that we won’t all suffer if we all make the same mistake. The suffering brought by inevitable wrong choices is greatly diminished in a free society. If we suppress peoples’ voices, ideas can’t compete, and the best and brightest ideas would never reach the surface. Our understanding would be blurred. Suppressing free speech would make the truth harder to find, creating countless problems and inefficiencies. All of this would reduce wellbeing. Hiding the truth can even bankrupt entire companies, leaders of large companies struggle to have the truth climb up to them through the hierarchy, since employees often hide the truth over fear of punishment and reputation damage. The freer a society is to say things and discover what is best, the more productive, just, accurate, and happy that society will be.
If someone is verbally abusing someone else, this should stop. We have the right to walk away from any conversation we don’t like or don’t want to engage with. Being forced to listen to someone you don’t want to listen to, is wrong. So before and above freedom of speech, there is the individual freedom to listen or to not listen. BUT, nobody should have the power to determine what others can or cannot listen to, this protects speech. In other words, adults should decide what to listen to, what to say, but never force others to listen to them, and never silence the consensual conversations of others. If you silence someone I want to talk to, you are infringing on my right to listen.
If someone tells an adult, “I need to protect you and decide what you can or cannot hear”, this would be treating them like children. This is disrespectful to the journey and evolutionary process of every human being. It is insulting and condescending. We must be free to experiment and make mistakes, we must be free to learn and grow, that is LIFE. To go counter to this is to limit life itself, forcibly constipating a natural aspect of existence: growth and evolution.
In 2014, the private and sexual photos of a group of celebrities was hacked and obtained without permission. These images were posted on Reddit, it was called “TheFappening”. How would you feel if your sexual photos were posted for all the world to see, without your permission? We think it is reasonable to ask for such photos to be removed. Also in 2014, a user posted pictures on 4chan of someone they strangled to death. Imagine you are the friend or relative of the victim, we think it would be reasonable to ask for such pictures to be removed as well. These and other valid examples of content moderation exist, so we do need some sort of content moderation in Artchemy. There are things that are copyrighted for example, and we cannot make and sell artworks of them.
Let’s put aside Artchemy for a moment and reflect on hate speech. Allowing governments to censor hate speech is a very slippery slope. This power to censor could slowly decay and be used unfairly. If we agree that hate speech should be silenced, you can then silence anything you label as hateful, it’s quite easy to label anything as hateful. Imagine someone proclaims that we need to clean the streets of trash, a very reasonable proposal. Now imagine someone counters that this is hateful to the people contaminating the streets, it is not considerate of them and the difficult time they are having. You could say it is hateful towards the unprivileged, the homeless, and it is invasive of their space. The call to clean the streets could be labeled as “hateful”, and then silenced. You could even jail someone for “harming homeless people”. You can do this with virtually anything, you can label anything as hateful and silence it. You can also label anything as misinformation or disinformation, either fairly or unfairly. This is the reason why the founding fathers of the United States gave complete protection to free speech, without restrictions. Because even though it is reasonable to silence certain things, it is not reasonable to expect that this silencing power will always be used fairly. We need to understand this: the governmental power to silence others, even when it is done with good intentions, is eventually always abused. That’s why we should never grant it to any government. But what about companies? Can they moderate their content? But before we answer that, how can society solve hate speech?
Outside Artchemy, how should governments deal with hate speech? As we said earlier, we have the right to listen to whatever we want. If you censor someone, you are violating my right to listen. The way to solve hate speech is very simple: each person has the right to NOT listen to what they individually consider hateful, but nobody should have the power to define for others what is hateful and what is not, because that power will eventually always be abused. In other words, I have the right to define the settings of what I consume, but nobody has the right to define those settings for me, doing so would be tyrannical and oppressive. The power to filter hate speech should be given to each individual as per their individual preferences and beliefs. It is destructive for society to use hate speech as an excuse for censorship.
Returning to the earlier question, can a company moderate its content? Imagine there is a magazine about entrepreneurship, and readers can submit their thoughts, strategies, and success stories. In such a place, you can’t submit something off topic, because that is not the focus of the magazine. This editorial rule would help the magazine focus on a specific topic and get the most out of it. Such rules are necessary and we use them all the time in all kinds of places. This is an example of how company moderation is valid and is different from government censorship.
Imagine someone tells you that you cannot use your hands for the rest of your life. This would obviously be wrong. But, if you decide to play soccer, and you are not the goalie, then you agree not to use your hands, and you agree to have your team punished if you do. During this sports event, you are limiting the freedom to use your hands, but you are doing so voluntarily in a way that is consensual, interesting, and will make the experience of soccer possible. So it’s okay to limit certain freedoms as long as we do so voluntarily, in order to play a certain type of game, or to create a specific experience. It’s like the seatbelt in a car, you consent to being tied to a seat for your own safety, even if it temporarily limits your movement.
When an authority targets a specific person or idea, with the intent to silence their message across all mediums, that is censorship. When a group of individuals consent to interact under certain rules, and those rules are upheld, that is moderation. When people are free to create different thoughts, groups, games, companies, organizations, etc., that is the free market of ideas.
A horse that runs in curves or circles, won’t reach as far as a horse that runs on a straight line. Can we draw a similar focusing line for Artchemy, establishing a vision, so we may reach much further in the direction we want to go? Can we define a set of agreements, that will allow us to be more constructive, to reach more people, and inspire more hearts?
Most revenue generated in Artchemy goes to our creators, in compensation for their creations. The attribution and merit for your creations is yours. This means that if Artchemy is successful, our users will be much more successful. The greatness of our success is inexorably linked to yours. We are on the same team. Please keep this in mind as we debate what Editorial Policy to pursue. Thank you.
We can reduce our Editorial Policy choices to 2:
We actually started Artchemy on the Chaotic Path. But over time, we’ve come to understand and appreciate the qualities of the Constructive Path, especially in relationship to the artworks, which are physical things that bring more vividness, power, and “viscerality” to our ideas. And with more power, comes more responsibility. Let’s explore some pros and cons of each. But first, keep in mind that Artchemy is built upon blockchain tokens, which means that users shall have the privilege of remaining anonymous if they want. This anonymity grants more freedom to be authentic, but it also reduces inhibition and accountability. Chaotic Path Advantages: members would make many controversial and startling artworks, that would gather both attention and repudiation. It could be a great way to go viral, and spark initial interest in the platform. Some of the most passionate people would join us, with an almost religious zeal. People would attack and counterattack each other. Passions would be inflamed, fueling engagement. But after the dust settles, and hearts are torn, what value would we have given to the world? Chaotic Path Disadvantages: humans have evolved to focus more on threats than opportunities. Vicious and provocative artworks would suck a lot of attention and focus away from constructive endeavors and into confrontational ones. If an artwork attacks a group, it would ignite their animosity, divide our community, and push people away from us. The extreme lack of moderation on 4chan offers many lessons here, it became unappealing for most people. The chaotic path would diminish how constructive our artworks are, and might reduce the size of our audience. All of these factors would ultimately damage our success. Constructive Path Advantages: a clear positive focus would spare us many problems, arguments, and distractions. It would maximize general goodwill between us and toward us, and increase the number of people that would join us. Artchemy would be palatable to more people, it would be easier to partner with schools, museums, governments, and many other organizations. We’d have fewer points of criticism, and we’d focus better and deeper on the subjects that matter. The journey would be more enjoyable and uplifting for everyone, with fewer confrontations, mistakes, and regrets. Keep in mind that you cannot take back an artwork published on the blockchain. Constructive Path Disadvantages: the constructive path would be unappealing to those who just want to lash out and discharge their frustration. It would turn off the more combative segment of the population, who seek to fight and punish others. This would reduce our audience somewhat, but probably nowhere close to the scale of people that wouldn’t appreciate us becoming a disheartening battleground. We might not have the initial viral boost of the more chaotic path, but over time, we would become a civilized place that is more respectable and admirable, with a richer corpus of inspiring artworks. A slower path to success, but ultimately more successful.
It seems clear that the easier, more seductive path is the Chaotic Path, and the harder, most positive path is the Constructive Path. Since it’s easier to voice complaints than solutions, and controversy is more viral, the Chaotic Path is easier to initially execute; but it seems to us that the Constructive Path will ultimately be more satisfying, impactful, and successful. Consider your close relationships, when has it ever been effective to try to resolve something with aggression and blame? When has it been effective to just speak, but not listen? There are more evolved and civilized ways of making progress with our fellow humans. Let’s also consider the relevancy of our art in 500 years. If we tackle deeper, more important subjects, instead of venting temporal frustrations, our gift to humanity can have an almost eternal lifespan, as long as human records can withstand the test of time. In order to bring peace, unity, and healing to society, we need to be positive, respectful, and constructive with one another. We need to set a stage where we can interact on contentious issues in a way that is minimally painful, without burning the bridges of reconciliation. And hopefully, we can bring resolution, unity, and friendship to sensible people who were once adversaries. For maximum effectiveness, we must focus deeply on the subjects that matter, with as few distractions as possible. In order to do the most amount of good in the world, Artchemy decides on an Editorial Policy of positivity, constructiveness, and civility. Let’s create the most beautiful, meaningful, and impactful artworks of our time!
According to recent polls by the Pew Research Center, respondents say that political debate in the United States has become less fact-based and less respectful.
The number one word chosen by respondents to describe the current state of politics is "divisive", with chaotic, messy, polarized, and dysfunctional as other top descriptors.
This deterioration generally makes respondents feel angry and exhausted.
We don't want any of this for Artchemy. We want Artchemy to be a place where we can focus in the most productive, constructive, and positive way possible. We want to feel real satisfaction and joy from our work here. Let's not allow fighting to distract us from our goal of achieving real understanding, growth, and conciliation. We feel very confident that an editorial policy that is peaceful and constructive, shall be of more benefit than a policy that empowers divisiveness and destructiveness. Having said this, we are open to growing and evolving ourselves as we carry on forward.
Send us an email at artchemy@fragatta.com, or post to us on X/Twitter @Artchemy_com. We’d love to hear from you and listen to your suggestions on how to make Artchemy better.
